Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 14 October 2019 12:17 UTC
Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D09D120274; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=HYOejhlU; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=qRIpFQCN
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PPffnw--dxnH; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2BF120255; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 05:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B79922245; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:17:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:17:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=E mnxDPVB41LHsjhqAXf7INivIII1+ivJ7MPNDhtsHj8=; b=HYOejhlUnaBjvJx+j PBTkKDcUZRw5c2BWY2euUCwWEehfxN63NC65d6bSEkIqJp5DwqqrY/YjgC2HGsmq wEEGHy/0ccLfrvrMQsSMEMDAQ8rcYHiqgRQfGvHqMfKifCpmJ4YyuwqMfrJPIXYO e9UvP9ZO7uU3cU/LopuvqA+M06vyT2MeM+u+ZPfl9iIV0/wf8kTB91bK2fiiMBKp WTfHDBl3ODaphk5d/6/pUWN42yfHqZ4RSGCMag2NT5TUuGMGpfg2CzFd406lQy3U MxBxrXCNuYzQlxMkIFqn+UHAugjqHeU8jfHT7GC0rO8ZUMNQIicNE/cqFC6eV21+ SqHbA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=EmnxDPVB41LHsjhqAXf7INivIII1+ivJ7MPNDhtsH j8=; b=qRIpFQCNGnJ33vK8RC2zwS0SM2dMlUeEPhElOdCA/wHxX2/pbv97eaWrI 2uCVW2bZ31hz8YGNaiuuxpOGSWVG5AzUzhQ2aNutrMoi4WZLe51o47FDW8FJcln4 S8BupqBJaiRBY0RwK8cmN2PZMrdpO+ikJVyhMNVvzirnPSELbblKTDtBHoPfLrpf yBWJx2J67UwZ7OIJ6D+40CNXdU/a+AajtJzhYpXSihUTaDiIkiBYVGGdIeh/Z8Gs AzAqK/7Ibf+LvtIoxC+Y87D+LH8rRLyec4ViMPNAjrAutlAnbTe2dXcEvtc3cnAM nIBaBfRiAvI1wnF3morodW2KPLlCQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:c2ekXVhPJu0CkqM_rI6dXvCspBQrxKYsjaTEuxkRiRIplouj6vVgRg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrjedugdehudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecukfhppedvfe drvddtrddvgeehrddvgeefnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrlhhishhsrges tghoohhpvghrfidrihhnnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:c2ekXVcmTygXXRYuJ-I50zo1CY32wnunmt9C3O0WRkS6lr4R2QSFjQ> <xmx:c2ekXYmQRJi0F52Dk7hpwvAX0VaeOGxq436M4V4N3QpWdF56yFtutQ> <xmx:c2ekXeuGhZZmYI2osFYavr76BRXrzoMsS31vdqkrfrvkGw6yfV71-Q> <xmx:dGekXb4vP8dK3lWUWylhr1BOr8E6LokUdPj_7t94yTGhuTViX3O-cw>
Received: from [192.168.0.162] (ec2-23-20-245-243.compute-1.amazonaws.com [23.20.245.243]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B6246D6005E; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:17:54 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch)
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <6B306CEB-3DC3-4315-ADF3-56A8FCE4225E@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 08:17:52 -0400
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, gendispatch@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <338E53C5-08C7-470A-A7A9-EF548B00F320@cooperw.in>
References: <156953786511.31837.12069537821662045851.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <8A15D8AF-6B1A-42A0-85CE-DF861E73C1C2@nostrum.com> <CALaySJL0-=Jn0Wk8GR+xrGcZ6Vyv4QO+p=LgkKt5srdVu+Zh_g@mail.gmail.com> <6CC7893B-7A6C-4A6A-9AB4-9C62A4E1777A@nostrum.com> <6F6819D9-E681-4247-8C19-F87709ADB1CA@mnot.net> <2DE4AAEA-13A0-4D49-AE3E-8ACCD81BF49E@nostrum.com> <2E4933D9-ECD0-436A-9ADA-5EF6C6470C01@nostrum.com> <18383AE8-9AF2-4C93-8598-EF33F7E49A4B@cooperw.in> <6B306CEB-3DC3-4315-ADF3-56A8FCE4225E@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nvFjYOurgQI2q3cMT4jLcrHE2zs>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 12:17:59 -0000
Hi Ben, > On Oct 11, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > > > >> On Oct 11, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote: >> >> Hi Ben, >> >>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: >>> >>> Here’s an attempt to distill my concern a little better: >>> >>> The “dispatch process” can reasonably be thought of as a triage process. Triage makes sense when you don’t have the time and resources to address every problem and have to pick and choose where you can have the most impact. If you do have time and resources to address everything, then triage is just a process bump. >>> >>> Do we believe that GEN area proposals will routinely exceed our capacity to discuss them? If so, do we think that will continue to be true for the foreseeable future? (I assume this is intended to be a long-lived wg). >> >> I guess I see the question differently. If there are people in the community who are willing to manage discussions about process proposals while they’re in formation (i.e., people willing to chair this WG), that seems like a better arrangement than the current one both from the perspective of being more community-led and from the perspective of the other time commitments that the IESG has. If the WG isn’t busy or meeting all the time, that’s fine — it will still be nice to have it there for times when process proposals do come up and inspire discussion. > > I think I’ve been unclear in my concern. I have no objection to having a working group for discussion of proposals to improve processes. I think that’s a good idea. My question is about whether such working group should be limited to the dispatch process. > > Certainly there may be case where there it is appropriate dispatch work to some other venue, spin up a new wg for a proposal, etc. But I wonder why we need to decide in advance that work on a proposal will cannot be completed by this group. Especially when it seems likely that the people working on a proposal will often be the same whether the work happens in gendispatch or somewhere else. Ah, got it. This is a good question. Perhaps we can try it in dispatch-style for awhile and see if we’re often arriving at an outcome where it seems like just processing a document in the WG would be the most logical thing to do. If so, a re-charter to allow that would be possible. I was a little hesitant to jump straight to having a General Area Working Group; the dispatch-style group seemed like it could be a useful intermediate step. Alissa > > Thanks! > > Ben. >> >
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Eric Rescorla
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Sean Turner
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- RE: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Roni Even (A)
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) John Levine
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Alissa Cooper
- RE: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Roni Even (A)
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Mark Nottingham
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Ben Campbell
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Keith Moore
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Jari Arkko
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Patrick McManus
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Michael Richardson
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Gendispatch] WG Review: General Area Dispatc… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: WG Review: General Area Dispatch (gendispatch) S Moonesamy